New Test. Stud. , pp. .

Printed in the United Kingdom Cambridge University Press

Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914)

NOR MAN H . YOU NG
Faculty of Theology, Avondale College, Cooranbong NSW 2265, Australia

Heb 13.914 envisages a situation where Christians of a Jewish background are still
defining themselves too much by their Levitical heritage. They are still interacting
with the synagogue, including participating in religious meals. Hebrews urges the
readers to go outside the camp/gate, to sever the ties with Jerusalem, that is, to
make a clean break from Judaism both in understanding and in practice. Such a
parting may bring abuse, but this is only to follow the way of Jesus. The problem
then is not so much an attraction back into Judaism, but a failure to leave it suffi-
ciently in the first place.

I. Introduction

Chapter 13 is often said to be the key to the theology of Hebrews.1 More

specifically Heb 13.916 has been nominated as one of the epistles most import-
ant sections.2 Moreover, the verses that concern us, vv. 914, are among those
many passages that have attracted the notoriety of being one of the most difficult
texts in the NT.3 There is certainly debate over whether the verses refer to the
Eucharist or not, specifically the meaning of qusiasthvrion (v. 10); there is an
unclarity about the meaning of the various and strange teachings (v. 9a), and
about the nature of the foods that are unprofitable for those who live by them (v.
9b). There is also disagreement over who is meant by those who serve the tent,

1 F. V. Filson, Yesterday: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (SBT 2/4; London: SCM,
1967) 82; J. Thurn, Das Lobopfer der Hebrerbrief: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von
Hebrerbrief 13 (bo: bo Akademi, 1973) 2467; D. Lhrmann, Der Hohepriester ausserhalb
des Lagers (Heb 13,12), ZNW 69 (1978) 186.
2 S. Lehne (The New Covenant in Hebrews [JSNTSup 44; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990] 157 n. 129) says
that Heb 13.916 contains the gist of Heb. in a nutshell.
3 One of the most complex passages in Hebrews, if not in the entire New Testament (J. W.
Thompson, Outside the Camp: A Study of Heb 13.914, CBQ 40 [1978] 53; repr. in idem, The
Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews [CBQMS 13; Washington, DC:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982] 141); among the most difficult passages of the
entire New Testament (H. Koester, Outside the Camp: Hebrews 13.914, HTR 55 [1962]
299); one of the most controversial passages in Hebrews (W. L. Lane, Hebrews 913 [WBC
47B; Dallas: Word Books, 1991] 530).
244 .

and over what point the author is making with his quotation of Lev 16.27 in v. 11.
Considerations like these led F. J. Schierse to say that the exegete stands before the
passage at a complete loss (in vlliger Ratlosigkeit).4 However, our concern is not
directly with these celebrated crux interpreta, but with the historical reality
behind the exhortation that concludes the authors paraenesis the appeal to
go out to Jesus outside the camp (ejxercwvmeqa pro;~ aujto;n e[xw th`~ parembolh`~,
v. 13).
How are the readers supposed to go out to Jesus, outside the camp? Was this
simply a mental disposition, or was some physical act involved? And why would
this going outside the camp bring reproach or abuse? Is this reproach simply
verbal insult, or does it have affinities with Jesus physical sufferings outside the
gate? Why would they be reviled, and who would revile them?
This is not the first time the author has used the term reproach (ojneidismov~).
It is one of the words he uses to describe the readers own previous experience of
suffering (10.33), and it also describes Moses acceptance of the reproach of
Christ (oJ ojneidismo;~ tou` Cristou`) in preference to the pleasures of Egypt (11.26).
This last example directly parallels the authors exhortation to his readers in 13.13
to bear his reproach (oJ ojneidismo;~ aujtou`). What was the reproach of Christ?

II. The reproach of Christ (Heb 11.26)

In concluding his list of the champions of faith, the author tells how
Jesus endured the cross (uJpevmeinen staurovn) and gave no thought to its shame
(aijscuvnh~ katafronhvsa~, 12.2). Such language reflects the terms used to describe
the Maccabean martyrs in 4 Maccabees (6.9; 13.1; 14.1, 11; 16.2).5 Furthermore, Jesus
endured hostility (uJpomemenhkovta . . . ajntilogivan) from sinners against him-
self.6 Given the writers emphasis on the death of Jesus, it is clear that this oppo-
sition, notwithstanding the term ajntilogiva, was not limited to verbal abuse.7
Likewise, the language concerning his suffering refers to the nature of his
death (13.12).8 This is clear from 2.9, which speaks of to; pavqhma tou` qanavtou. As
well, in 9.258 the author links the necessity of Jesus suffering (e[dei aujto;n
paqei`n) with his death. He makes this link clear through three additional state-
4 F. J. Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung: Zur theologischen Grundfrage des
Hebrerbriefes (MTS 1/9; Mnchen: Zink, 1955) 184.
5 N. C. Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:113 in its Rhetorical, Religious, and
Philosophical Context (SNTSMS 98; Cambridge: CUP, 1998) 187.
6 If the plural reading (eJautouv~ or aujtouv~) is preferred, it means to their own harm (for a
defence of the plural reading see Lane, Hebrews 913, 400 n.u).
7 Croy, Endurance, 189. D. A. deSilva sees a background in Ps 68.8, 10 LXX (Despising Shame:
Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews [SBLDS 152;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1995] 194).
8 The Romans generally crucified their victims in a conspicuous public place, such as outside
a busy thoroughfare (see M. Hengel, Crucifixion [London: SCM, 1977] 87).
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 245

ments. First, he refers to his offering himself (i{na . . . prosfevrh eJautovn, v. 25) once
for all (a{pax prosenecqeiv~, v. 28); secondly, he mentions his sacrifice (qusiva,
v. 26); and thirdly, he speaks unequivocally of Jesus once-for-all death (a{pax
ajpoqanei`n, v. 27).9
The writer therefore identifies the suffering of Jesus with his death by crucifix-
ion, and this for him is the reproach of Christ.10 The reproach of Christ then
involves more than social marginalisation. Furthermore, the author is conscious
of the location of Jesus suffering, and it has significance for him.

III. Outside the gate (Heb 13.12)

Outside the gate describes the physical place where Jesus was crucified
outside the city of Jerusalem.11 In addition it carries with it the idea that Jesus was
rejected by his own Davidic city. According to A. T. Hanson the essence of the
Messiahs reproach was that he should be rejected by his own.12 It is the histori-
cal location of Jesus crucifixion outside the gate of Jerusalem that attracts the
author to a minor feature in the Day of Atonement ritual, that is, the burning of
the carcasses of the sacrificial animals outside the camp of Israel. This, as Hanson
says, was a relatively minor feature of the rite as a whole.13
Nevertheless, it has relevance from the authors point of view, which is gov-
erned by the events of Jesus death rather than the procedures of the OT cult as
such. A good example of the christological direction of the authors interpretive
method is found in 9.22. In this text he focuses on the final act of pouring out
(aiJmatekcusiva) the sacrificial blood at the base of the burnt offering altar, which
in the Levitical sin-offering ritual occurred after the atoning act proper was con-
cluded (Lev 4.7, 18, 25, 30, 34). As Windisch observed, the disposal of the blood at
the base of the altar was no special ritual act (besonderer ritueller Akt), but the
outpouring of blood that belonged to every offering.14 The author is drawn to this

9 The author clearly parallels the mortal destiny of all humanity (a{pax ajpoqanei`n, v. 27) with
Jesus death. This is made plain by the introductory phrase (ou{tw~ kai; oJ Cristov~, v. 28a)
and the corresponding language (a{pax prosenecqei;~, v. 28b).
10 The language of the Gospels and Paul is instructive here. Mark uses ejmpaivzw, ejmptuvw,
mastigovw in foretelling the death of Christ (10.34). With the exception of mastigovw (cf. John
19.1), Mark uses them again at the time of the event (14.65; 15.20). To describe the reaction of
those present at the crucifixion, Mark uses blasfhmevw, ejmpaivzw and ojneidivzw (15.2932).
Paul associates words like mwriva and skavndalon with the cross (1 Cor 1.18; Gal 5.11).
11 Josephus paraphrases Lev 16.27 on the citys outskirts (ejn toi`~ proasteivoi~), that is, out-
side Jerusalem (Ant. 3.241). Philo also understands outside the camp to refer to a place some
distance from the centre (kai; ouj plhsivon, ajllaj porrwtavtw, Ebr. 100). Philo of course
relates the language to his Platonic vision of Judaism (Leg. All. 3.151; Gig. 54).
12 A. T. Hanson, The Reproach of the Messiah in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SE 7 (TU 126; 1982)
239.
13 Ibid., 238.
14 H. Windisch, Der Hebrerbrief (HNT; 2nd edn; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1931) 82.
246 .

minor and non-atoning part of the sin-offering ritual because of the ambiguity of
aiJmatekcusiva, which can mean either the pouring out or the shedding of blood.
The author accepts the meaning shedding of blood, for this allows him to relate
the death of Christ more readily to the Levitical ritual. Thus he virtually ignores
the sprinkling of the blood, which was the cultic act proper, preferring the final
disposal of the blood because it better suits his purpose of applying the ritual to
the death of Jesus on the cross.15
Using the same technique as in 9.22, the author in 13.1112 relates the suffering
of Jesus to the burning of the sacrificial carcasses of the Day of Atonement, the
point of contact for the author being the similarity of their location, that is, out-
side the gate and outside the camp. The author then draws two further points
from the fact that the bodies of the young bull and the goat used in the Day of
Atonement cleansing were burnt outside the camp of Israel (Lev 16.27).16 As we
have noted, this is a minor part of the ritual and had in the law no atoning signifi-
cance; but it did for our author.

IV. Those who serve the tent (Heb 13.10)

To defend his statement excluding those who serve the tent (v. 10) from
the Christian altar, the writer appeals (note the linking gavr, v. 11) to the Mosaic
legislation concerning the priests right to eat from the sacrifices. The law stipu-
lated that the priests were to eat the sin offering (Lev 6.19, 22) and portions of cer-
tain other sacrifices (Lev 7.6; 1 Cor 9.13). There was, however, an exception to this
general principle: if the blood went beyond the burnt-offering altar into the tab-
ernacle proper, including the holy of holies, then the priests were commanded not
to eat of the sin-offering. In this case the carcasses were to be burnt outside the
camp (Lev 6.30; 16.27).
From this Mosaic legislation the author makes the first of his two points,
namely, that the old order and the new are mutually exclusive; those who serve
the tent, that is, the Levitical system, cannot at the same time adhere to the new
order in Christ. By the rules of the Levitical law itself, those who minister at its tent
cannot eat of the Day of Atonement sacrifices. This the author correctly observes,
fagei`n oujk e[cousin ejxousivan oiv th` skhnh` latreuvonte~ (13.10). Since Jesus

15 The efforts of T. C. G. Thornton (The Meaning of aiJmatekcusiva in Heb. ix.22, JTS n.s. 15
[1964] 635) and W. G. Johnsson (The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,
ExPT 89 [19778] 1048) to relate aiJmatekcusiva to sprinkling, even some post-Calvary blood
application of the risen Jesus, are mistaken. For a reply, see N. H. Young, AiJmatekcusiva: A
Comment, ExPT 90 (19789) 180.
16 Man kann aber hier zwei Schritte des Vf erkennen (W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester:
Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebrerbriefes [WMANT 53;
Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1981] 180).
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 247

offering is a Day of Atonement sin offering, the priests by Levitical law are
excluded from partaking of it. It is received by grace not by the mouth of a priest
(cavriti, . . . ouj brwvmasin, 13.9; cf. Lev 10.1620).17
That the tent mentioned in 13.10 refers to the Levitical order is apparent
from the epistles usage elsewhere: 8.5; 9.2, 3, 6, 8, 21. Having told us that the
Levitical priests, who offer gifts according to the law, serve as a model and a
shadow of the heavenly things, the author introduces the establishment of the
Mosaic tent (8.5). These two things, the priests and the tent, are clearly bonded
and both therefore belong to the era of shadows; neither is final. When he refers
to Jesus venue of ministry, the author speaks of the true tent or the greater and
more perfect tent (8.2; 9.11); when he comments on the Levitical ministry, he uses
the qualification first tent (9.2, 6, 8).18 And just as the Levitical priests are a model
or shadow of heavenly things, so the first tent is an illustration (parabolhv) an
illustration destined to disappear at the coming of the new order (kairo;~
diorqwvsew~, 9.10).
Those who serve (oiJ . . . latreuvonte~) the tent are strictly, then, the Levitical
priests (10.11, Kai; pa`~ me;n iJereu;~ e{sthken kaq hJmevran leitourgw`n kai; ta;~
aujta;~ pollavki~ prosfevrwn qusiva~),19 for the law separated the Levites from the
rest of the Israelites to minister the service of the tent of the Lord (leitourgei`n ta;~
leitourgiva~ th`~ skhnh`~ kurivou, Num 16.9b LXX) and to stand and serve the
people (parivstasqai e[nanti th`~ sunagwgh`~ latreuvein aujtoi`~, v. 9c LXX).20
Elsewhere in Hebrews latreuvw is used of the worshippers in general (9.9; 10.2).
Accordingly, although the language in 13.10 is specific to priests, it refers to anyone
whose worship is still conditioned by the system of the Levitical law.21 This is a
negative description of Judaism and should not be construed as referring to
Christians serving the heavenly sanctuary.22

17 This does not mean Hebrews opposes the Lords Supper, though the author is no sacramen-
talist. Fully discussed in H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebrer [KKNT; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991] 7269.
18 He uses second to describe the earthly holy of holies, but this is to facilitate his use of this
part of the tabernacle to symbolise the permanent realm of the second covenant. See Lehne,
New Covenant, 1001.
19 The reading ajrciereuv~ (A, C. P) is a corruption probably based on Heb 7.27.
20 Though using a different verb and referring to the altar, the same idea is found in Heb 7.13
(ejf o}n ga;r levgetai tau`ta fulh`~ eJt evra~ metevschken, ajf
).
21 Lehne, New Covenant, 11516; J. M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 1012.
22 As some do, for example J. Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924) 2345; T. H. Robinson, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1933) 202; E. Grsser, An die Hebrer (Hebr
10, 1913,25) (EKK; Benziger/Neukirchener: Zurich, 1997) 3846.
248 .

The pronominal suffixes used in v. 10 e[comen, e[cousin immediately notify

us that the author is distinguishing two groups, two ways of worship, two
approaches to God.23 This conclusion finds some support from Barnabass usage,
who consistently uses the plural demonstrative pronoun, ejkei`noi, for the Jews
and the first person plural pronoun, hjmei`~, for the Christians.24 Indeed, oiJ
peripatou`nte~ (13.9c) is used for living within ones national customs; it does not
naturally convey the idea of living according to the invisible securities of the
earthly sphere.25 Acts 21.21 and Eph 4.7 are good parallels to Hebrews usage:
kathchvqhsan de; peri; sou` o{ti ajpostasivan didavskei~ ajpo; Mwu>sevw~ tou;~
kata; ta; e[qnh pavnta~ Ioudaivou~, levgwn mh; peritevmnein aujtou;~ ta; tevkna
mhde; toi`~ e[qesin peripatei`n.
mhkevti uJma`~ peripatei`n kaqw;~ kai; ta; e[qnh peripatei` ejn mataiovthti tou`
noo;~ aujtw`n.
Those who live by foods (v. 9) and those who serve the tent (v. 10) are iden-
tical. Both refer to Judaism, and by extension to all those whose sense (if not prac-
tice) of community and worship is overly swayed by the Levitical system.26 The
writer is directing his readers to a worship detached, distinct and independent
from Judaism. The altar which we [Christians] have is clearly Calvary, for an altar
is a place of sacrifice, and that for the writer is outside the gate/camp, where Jesus
suffered in order to sanctify the people by means of his own blood. The language
is very cultic and reminiscent of the Day of Atonement with its sin offering for the
people.27 Hebrews emphasises Jesus death as effective for the people (2.17; [5.3;
7.27;] 9.7; 13.11).28 It is quite misleading to relate the altar to the heavenly sanctuary
heaven is the place of Jesus intercession, not his sacrifice (7.25; 9.24).29 It is

23 As noted long ago by J. E. L. Oulton, Great Texts Reconsidered: Heb. xiii.10, ExpT 55 (1944)
304, and ably defended by P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the
Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993) 710. Per contra
Grsser, Hebrer, 3789.
24 It is they in contrast to us. The author of Barnabas deals with two different peoples (R.
Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and
JewishChristian Competition in the Second Century [WUNT 82; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Siebeck), 1996] 63). Hvalvik (1359) gives an extended list of the they and we contrasts in
Barnabas.
25 Pace the opinion of Thompson, Outside the Camp, 613.
26 That the addressees are emotionally attached to the Levitical cult cannot be ruled out even
for Christians in the Diaspora, let alone in Palestine. See A. N. Chester, Hebrews: The Final
Sacrifice, Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology (ed. S. W. Sykes; Cambridge:
CUP, 1991) 59.
27 kai; rJanei` ejp (sic tou` qusiasthvriou) ajpo; tou` tw`/ daktuvlw/ eJptavki~ kai;
kaqariei` aujto; kai; aujto; ajpo; tw`n ajkaqarsiw`n (Lev 16.19
LXX). See Loader, Sohn, 180.
28 Brought to my attention by one of my students, Jotham Kingston.
29 Of course, his intercession is premised on his atoning death.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 249

equally perverse to attempt to find the Eucharist in this reference to an altar.30 The
altar we have is the historical death of Christ the means of forgiveness, and a
source of encouragement to a community experiencing pain.
The law itself and the practices of the Day of Atonement preclude those of the
old order from participating in the new sacrifice of Calvary. As Jesus observed, the
attempt to contain the new within the old creates a disastrous tension (Mark
2.212). The writers call is for his readers to commit themselves exclusively to their
own altar, Calvary.

V. Outside the camp (Heb 13.11, 13)

The second point the author draws from the fact that the carcasses of the
Day of Atonement sin-offering sacrifices were burnt outside the camp relates to
his exhortation to his readers. They too are to leave the Levitical framework and
express their worship as a separate community, with its attendant risks, outside
the camp of Israel. A bold affirmation of their adherence to Jesus as Messiah could
trigger again the reproach of Christ that they had known in the past.31 If this hap-
pens, the author calls them to endurance (13.13). In this context the present par-
ticiple, fevronte~, means bearing up, enduring, and indicates that the author
expects that their going out will lead to persecution.32 The list of abuses in 11.328
may be an extreme picture but a picture nevertheless of the prospect the writer
anticipates for those who declare their Christian faith openly and boldly. It
appears then that the author is urging them to cut their ties with the relatively safe
ancestral religious environment of the synagogue. But why were they fraternising
with the synagogue in the first place?
Whether they are participating in the actual worship of the synagogue or
simply shrinking back (10.32) into a ghetto-like form of Christianity that is virtually
indistinguishable from Judaism may not be entirely clear.33 Nevertheless, if the
group was functioning somewhat like a synagogue, it is probable that they were
also interacting with the Jewish community. Wilson observes that the context of
Hebrews certainly suggest[s] that the author is trying to wean his readers from
the hankering after Jewish thought and practice.34 Whatever the case, there was

30 Daher ist ein Bezug auf die Eucharistie keineswegs sicher (Loader, Sohn, 180); R.
Williamson, The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews, NTS 21 (19745) 30012.
31 If the genitive (aujtou`) is taken as objective, as does the RSV, then the meaning is bearing
abuse for him. The NRSV does not retain this rendering, but prefers a subjective genitive,
and bear the abuse he endured.
32 Fevronte~ can have a similar connotation to ujpomevnw (see Heb 12.20).
33 T. W. Lewis, . . . And If He Shrinks Back (Heb. X.38b), NTS 22 (1976) 8894.
34 S. G. Wilson, The Apostate Minority, Mighty Minorities? Minorities in Early Christianity
Positions and Strategies: Essays in Honour of Jacob Jervell on his 70th Birthday (ed. D.
Hellholm et al.; Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1995) 205; and cf. J. T. Sanders, Schismatics,
250 .

obviously some arrest in their progress in the Christian faith and some muting of
their Christian witness. They were in danger of drifting away (2.1), of failing to
enter (4.1), of falling away (6.6), of spurning the Son of God (10.29), of shrink-
ing back (10.32), of growing weary and faint-hearted (12.3), of refusing the voice
of God (12.25), of being led astray (13.9).
There are three main views as to why the readers were being tempted to align
their worship to the practices of the synagogue.35 First, there was the attraction of
having a recognised identity that involvement in an ancient religion provided. It
is estimated that the Mediterranean Roman world had a population of some 60
million, of which about 710 per cent were Jews.36 Hence religiously the society
divided nicely into two clearly defined, though unequal, groups pagan and Jew.
In the late first century the Christians numbered in the thousands; numerically
they were a decided minority.37 In their self-understanding they were no longer
under the law (Rom 6.14), that is, Jews, but neither, having turned from idols to
serve the living God (1 Thess 1.9), were they pagans. To define their place in the
Greco-Roman world, Christians were tempted to interrelate to either pagan
society (1 Corinthians, Revelation), or Jewish (Galatians). The addressees of
Hebrews would appear to belong to the latter group: It is therefore to the main-
tenance of this group and its self-understanding as the people of God that the
authors words are directed.38 Dunnill describes the group in sectarian terms and
says they are Christians for whom Judaism offers the natural alternative identity-

Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of JewishChristian Relations
(London: SCM, 1993) 60.
35 Leaving aside views that deny there is any pull towards Judaism in Hebrews at all. For
example, M. E. Isaacs (Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews
[JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992] 67) argues that the writers purpose is to shepherd the
readers through the emotional loss of the holy city and temple, while E. Larsson (Om
Hebrerbrevets syfte, Svensk Exegetisk rsbok 37/38 [19723] 3089; idem, How Mighty was
the Mighty Minority?, Mighty Minorities?, 101) attributes the communitys flirtation with
Judaism to their own misreading of the LXX scriptures. Some significant researchers believe
the addressees are Gentiles and the Levitical imagery in Hebrews is simply used as a foil to
demonstrate to the flagging spirits of the readers the superiority of Christ (thus Moffatt,
Hebrews, xxvixxvii; W. G. Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament [London: SCM, 1966]
280).
36 R. L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University, 1984)
11314; S. G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70170 C.E. (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1995) 21.
37 Wilson, Related Strangers, 259; H. Risnen, The Clash Between Christian Styles of Life in
the Book of Revelation, Mighty Minorities?, 1512; R. L. Fox, Pagans and Christians in the
Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (London:
Viking Penguin, 1986) 317.
38 J. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 75; Cambridge: CUP,
1992) 22.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 251

base, and who are vulnerable to theoretical and social pressures to turn back, or
turn aside, to that alternative.39 Nothing in this view favours a date either before
or after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 .
The second view is not entirely exclusive of the first, but it stresses Judaism as
a religio licita, and that Christians were identifying with the synagogue as a haven
from impending Roman persecution.40 The idea that Rome had a list of legally
permitted religions and others that were outlawed is unlikely, but there is no
doubt that Judaism had gained some tolerance and status as an ancient religion.41
This position fits a date before 70 , though Jews in the Diaspora were not very
adversely affected by the 6673 revolt, so a date after 70 cannot therefore be
ruled out.
A third interpretation stresses the pre-70 situation of the rising anti-Roman
sentiment amongst Palestinian Jews. The Jews were putting pressure on Christian
Jews to show their loyalty and solidarity with the nation and their support for the
holy city and temple by participating in festive meals.42 Their fear then would not
have been due to Roman persecution, but rather of Jewish disdain and social
rejection. The pressure then would be for them to join in the temple movement
and identify with the Jewish struggle against the Romans.

VI. Bearing his reproach (Heb 13.13)

These three ideas are not entirely exclusive of one another. They all pro-
pose some form of reattachment to Judaism, even apostasy from their Christian
group. The apostasy was probably more the authors foreseen possible conse-
quence of the groups present timidity than their actual state. The small early
Christian enclaves must have been constantly tempted to find a sense of belong-
ing in the larger and more venerable Jewish communities. This would be true
whether they were attempting to escape from Roman persecution (which seems
doubtful), or to identify with the Jews against the Romans (which is somewhat
more plausible). The presence of persecution and the threat of it is well attested
in Hebrews, not least in 13.914 (note also v. 6), the text before us.43 To account for

39 Ibid., 24.
40 S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Zrich/Richmond: Evz-Verlag/Knox,
1965) 74. For a similar view see Loader, Sohn, 258; Lehne, New Covenant, 116; Wilson, Related
Strangers, 125; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; rev. edn; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1990) 382.
41 For the case against Judaism being a religio licita, see R. Maddox, The Purpose of LukeActs
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982) 913.
42 P. W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996) 22734.
43 P W. L. Walker, Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:914 and the Dating of the Epistle, TB 45 (1994) 59.
252 .

this we need think of nothing more than the hostility that almost any larger group
manifests towards any minority that begins to separate from it. The polemic
associated with the Christian partings from Judaism would of course produce
considerable heat from both sides.44
On balance, a date prior to 70 appears most likely.45 The urgency of the epis-
tles appeal, and the seriousness of the readers failure to assert their faith in
Christ boldly with its attendant risk of falling away, indicate that the writers pur-
pose is not merely to encourage despondent Christians with the thought that their
sanctuary is secure in heaven and not in ruins in Jerusalem.46 They are not
bereaved, they are tempted.47 The appeal to the tabernacle rather than the temple
grows out of the authors biblicism. The addressees were most likely a Jewish-
Christian community, but then we should recall that nothing in early Christianity
was un-Jewish.48 There is good reason to think that the situation facing the
readers included possible physical abuse and property forfeiture and not simply
loss of social status and prestige.
In the scattered network of small gatherings that made up the early
Christian community the news of any martyrdom or even near martyrdom
would be quickly disseminated throughout the various groups. A Stephen, a
James or an Antipas would be interpreted by such small, ostracised groups as
the omen of worse things to come. We do not need, therefore, to assume an
environment of systematic and widespread persecution to explain the passion
and urgency of the Epistle to the Hebrews. A few instances of physical and
verbal abuse would be enough to feed the fears of these culturally isolated
enclaves.49
All three theories concerning the situation of the readers discussed
above agree that the problem is a turning back for various reasons to the syn-

44 For persecution of Christians in the first two centuries, see G. E. M. de Ste Croix, Why Were
the Early Christians Persecuted?, Past and Present 26 (1963) 638; D. R. A. Hare, The Theme of
Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew (SNTSMS 6;
Cambridge: CUP, 1967) 1979; Fox, Pagans and Christians, Ch. 9 Persecution and
Martyrdom; C. J. Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30150
C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994).
45 See the judicious discussion in D. A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans,
2000) 203; Walker, Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:914, 3971.
46 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 73; earlier A. A. T. Ehrhardt, The Framework of the New Testament
Stories (Manchester: Manchester University, 1964) 109.
47 Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 228.
48 R. Bauckham, James at the Centre, Society for the Study of Early Christianity Newsletter 39
(2001) 6.
49 A. E. Harvey, Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy, Alternative
Approaches to New Testament Study (ed. A. E. Harvey; London: SPCK, 1985) 7996.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 253

agogue.50 However, continued association and a failure to embrace the Christian

religious ethos fully rather than attraction back into a former life is probably the
situation that concerns the writer. The stress throughout the epistle on going
out/on (4.16; 6.1 [fevrw]; 7.25; 10.22; 11.8; 12.22; 13.13) and even into (3.11, 18, 19; 4.1, 3,
6, 10, 11; 6.19, 20; 9.12, 24, 25) would indicate that the problem is not a turning back
so much as a failure to go forward and separate from Judaism completely in the
first place. That timidity in expressing their Christian faith in a bold and forthright
manner and a tendency to fraternise with the synagogue was the problem the
author of Hebrews was addressing appears persuasive to me for two reasons.

VII. Regulations about food (Heb 13.9 NRSV)

First and foremost is the obvious point that the concerns in vv. 914 are reli-
gious. Even if the language is not to be taken with unimaginative literalism, the
situation the terms envisage is certainly religious. Thus we note cavri~, brwvmata,
qusiasthvrion, skhnhv, latreuvw, ai|ma, ta; a{gia, ajrciereuv~, e[xw th`~ parembolh`~.
Isaacs is to be accepted when she concludes on the basis of Heb 9.910 that
brwvmata refers to Israels sacrificial ritual.51 The plural brwvmata is used of the sac-
rificial foods of the altar in Mal 1.7, 12 (LXX).52 Religious partaking of or abstention
from foods and drinks was common in the ancient world.53 A cultic context is the
most likely meaning here in 13.9b.54 Meals played a vital part in Jewish religious
and social life and were a major control in keeping Jews separate from the sur-
rounding Gentile world.55
It may well be that the readers were joining their Jewish neighbours in the syn-
agogue to celebrate communal meals such as the Passover.56 We know that in later

50 B. Lindars (The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews [Cambridge: CUP, 1991] 1014) also sees
attraction to the synagogue and its fellowship meals as the problem; but he believes that this
was because the readers felt the need to experience forgiveness through a solidarity with the
Jerusalem temple cult.
51 M. E. Isaacs, Hebrews 13.916 Revisited, NTS 43 (1997) 281; also Koester, Outside the
Camp, 3057; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 708.
52 This makes Lanes comment (Hebrews 913, 534) that the plural form brwvmata, foods, is
never used in the LXX in reference to Jewish sacrificial meals, but only to distinguish pure
from impure foods (Lev 11:34) somewhat misleading. See J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1912) 267, 33.
53 Bel. 1.11, 21; Plut. Mor. Fragments 47.19 (LCL 15.136); Jos. Ap. 2.141; Barn. 10.9; Just. Dial. 20.1.
54 For a useful discussion of brwvmata here see the excursus Strange Teachings and Foods in
H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 3946.
55 Ep. Arist. 139; Sifre on Deut 32.9; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From
Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE117 CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996) 4347.
56 There is some evidence that Diaspora Jews celebrated the Passover sacrifice: Philo, Spec. Leg.
2.145; Mos. 2.232; Jos. Ant. 14.260; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE66 CE
(London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1992) 1334; Barclay, Jews, 41516.
254 .

times Christians were tempted to join the Jews in the Passover worship.57 There is
some evidence of similar fraternisation in the sub-apostolic period.58 The
denouncements against such associations made by both Jewish and Christian
leaders indicate that the establishment of strict boundaries, especially for the
common people, took centuries.59 Involvement in Jewish religious meals probably
gave Christians the same sense of community and identity that the rituals had for
Jews. There may also have been some sense of security supplied by identifying
with the larger and more recognised group.60
It is now clear that xevnai~ didacai`~ are practices that the author considered
foreign to the community of Christ.61 Ellingworth accepts the REB translation
outlandish, but this is to give the practices a sense of the bizarre.62 The idea is
simply that they do not belong to the religion of Christ. Those who practised these
alien teachings, and those who served the tent, belonged to a different religious
philosophy from that espoused by the author of Hebrews. Worship through Christ
demanded the abandonment of the old ritual approaches to God, even in the

57 From the Martyrdom of Pionius (mid-3rd century) we learn that Jews were successfully invit-
ing Christians to the synagogue (12.2, Akouvw de; o{t i kaiv tina~ uJmw`n Ioudai`oi kalou`s in eij~
sunagwgav~ quoted in Hvalvik, Struggle, 246). Origen and Chrysostom also preached against
joining with Jews in meals or the Passover, as did the councils of Elvira (c.300), Antioch (341)
and Laodicea (360).
58 Ign. Magn. 8.19.2; Trall. 6.12; Phld. 6.12; Barn. 3.6 (i{na mh; prosrhsswvmeqa wJ~ ejphvlutoi
tw`/ ejkeivnwn novmw/); Diogn. 12.9; Did. 8; Jus. Dial. 8, 47. Justin frequently alludes to the cursing
of Christians in the synagogue, which may indicate that some Christians were attending the
synagogues in his day. Whether Christians were welcomed or not depended on the circum-
stances of their attendance (W. Horbury, The Benediction of the Minim and Early
JewishChristian Controversy, JTS 33 [1982] 523. Repr. in Jews and Christians in Contact and
Controversy [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998] 67110). M. C. de Boer (pace Horbury) refers the
curse, at least for the first four centuries, to Jews with the fellowship of the synagogue who
believed Jesus the Nazorean (The Nazoreans: Living at the Boundary of Judaism and
Christianity, Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity [ed. G. Stanton
and G. G. Stroumsa; Cambridge: CUP, 1998] 250).
59 J. D. G. Dunn, Two Covenants or One? The Interdependence of Jewish and Christian
Identity, Geschichte Tradition Reflexion: Festschrift fr Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag
(ed. H. Canik, H. Lichtenberger & P. Schfer; 3 vols; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1996) 3.1016.
60 Ibid., 101. Not until the seventh century in the city of Antioch did Christian leadership suc-
ceed in ending the influence of Judaism on its members (W. A. Meeks and R. L. Wilken, Jews
and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era [SBLSBS 13;
Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978) 18.
61 Josephus uses these terms to speak of sacrifice that was false to Jewish tradition (kaino-
tomei`n qrhskeivan xevnhn) and for foreign idolatrous ritual foods (xenikoi`~ te brwvmasin)
(Bell. 2.414; Ant. 4.139).
62 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 707.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 255

book form of the synagogue.63 This old-order approach, as we have seen, is encap-
sulated in the catch-all meaning of brwvmata.

VIII. Let us then go out to him (Heb 13.13)

The second reason for seeing 13.914 as a struggle to keep a small Christian
community from mixing their faith with a tradition that it had, in the writers view,
superseded is the exhortation in v. 13. The call to go out to him outside the camp,
with its resonances with Jesus own going outside the gate to suffer, has an appeal
to separate that no mere reference to Philonic mysticism can satisfy. DeSilvas
language of the movement away from security in and belonging to the earthly
camp . . . from rootedness in the temporal society is correct, but it lacks historical
specificity.64 The language of the text refers to a tangible withdrawal from interac-
tion with an entity like the synagogue. The call to go to him outside the camp
bearing the reproach he bore (13.13) involves a shift from a safe position to a
threatening one. The most obvious import of this exhortation is to make a clear
break with Judaism and to embrace Christianity fully as a religion in its own right
with all the difficulties that that would probably bring.
Koesters idea that the writer was exhorting his readers to become involved in
the life and experiences of the secular world is foreign to the authors whole
environment.65 As Troy Martin, on another issue, has noted, the alternative facing
the Christians was a modification of either paganism or Judaism; secularism was
not a likely option in the first century.66
DeSilva has recently argued that Hebrews addresses a mixed community of
Diasporic Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.67 The faltering in their faith
was caused by neither the threat of violent persecution nor a new attraction to
Judaism . . . but rather the more pedestrian inability to live within the lower status
that Christian associations had forced upon them, the less-than-dramatic (yet
potent) desire once more to enjoy the goods and esteem of their society.68
Though deSilva does not clearly define which society, it would appear to be
worldly, pagan unbelievers. This of course requires that the addressees are

63 Barnabas provides an example of Christian polemic against the Jewish sacrifices and temple
(Barn. 2.410; 16.110).
64 DeSilva, Perseverance, 502.
65 Koester (Outside the Camp, 302) identifies outside the camp with the worldliness of the
world itself and the place where men are exposed to the experience of this world rather than
protected from it.
66 Troy Martin, Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16,
NTS 42 (1996) 108.
67 DeSilva, Perseverance, 7.
68 Ibid., 19.
256 .

attracted back to their former place in society, which, despite its innovation, is still
akin to the traditional view.
We may question whether this makes sense for his own idea of a mixed com-
munity of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Since former Jews were quite accus-
tomed to being socially marginalised by pagan society, it is not likely that as
Christians they would find integration into pagan society a tempting attraction.
On the other hand we know from many other sources that Gentiles were often
attracted to Judaism. For Jewish Christians to maintain their links with Judaism is
historically plausible, and for Gentile Christians to be at ease with such a com-
promise is also likely, but for Jewish Christians to move out of the Christian sect
into pagan society is highly unlikely. That is to say, Judaism would be an attractive
social group for both Jewish and Gentile Christians to identify with, but pagan
society would have status appeal only for Gentile Christians and not all that
powerfully for them either if, as deSilva says, they had been socialized into a sect
that affirmed the OT.69
Nor should we see the matter as a philosophical appeal. Thompsons effort to
read 13.910 within Platonic or Philonic terms must also be dismissed as erro-
neous. For Thompson the pilgrim existence involves the renunciation of all secu-
rities in the earthly sphere, and that to go out from earthly securities is at the
same time to enter the heavenly world.70 The problem is that he makes the
author a thoroughgoing Platonist, for the earthly securities to which he refers are
the world of sense perception.71 Thompsons view lacks historical reference.72 He
does not tell us what the earthly securities are that the readers are to leave, other
than a vague Platonic aversion to the material world. He does not explain why a
mystical pursuit would bring to the Christian group a reproach and shame akin to
Christs suffering.
It follows then that these two factors the religious language and the urgent
nature of the appeal to go out require a real historical situation to which the
readers are urged to respond. The action that the writer exhorts will bring suffer-
ing (v. 13), and he knows this on the very good empirical grounds of the readers
own past experience (10.324: note the link word ojneivdismoi in v. 33), and the
example of Christ whom they are to follow.

69 Ibid., 5.
70 Thompson, Outside the Camp, 62.
71 Ibid., 63.
72 Eine dualistische Interpretation von Lev 16,27 im strengen Sinne liegt damit im Hebr indes
nicht vor (Weiss, Hebrer, 734). He goes on to argue that the biblical phrase outside
the camp (i.e. outside the gate) does not contrast, as in Philo, an earthly-corporeal with
a heavenly-otherworldly dualism, but attaches to the history and destiny of the earthly
Jesus.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 257

IX. We have here no permanent city (13.14)

The switch to language about a city in v. 14 is only a linguistic change, not

a conceptual shift, for Jerusalem was the holy city because within it was the holy
place, the temple. The city with its temple was a powerful emotional symbol for
the Jewish nation, not least for the Diaspora.73 The biblical data reveal over and
again the central place Jerusalem held in the history, religion, politics and emo-
tions of the nation. It is the Holy City (Isa 48.2), the City of God or the Lord (Ps
46.4; 87.3; 101.8), the City of the Lord Almighty (Ps 48.8), the Beautiful City (Ps
48.2), the City of the Great King (Ps 48.2; Matt 5.35), and Zion, the City, our Safe
Place (Isa 33.20 LXX). In the Danielic prayer for the restoration of the temple, both
the people and the city are said to bear the name of God (o{ti to; o[nomav sou ejpe-
klhvqh ejpi; th;n povlin sou Siwn kai; ejpi; to;n laovn sou Israhl, Dan 9.19 LXX; cf. Ps
47.13 LXX). Speaking of the freeing of the city, 2 Maccabees calls the temple the
most renowned in the whole world (kai; to; peribovhton kaq o{lhn th;n oijkoumevnhn
iJero;n, 2.22).74 Sirach calls Jerusalem the beloved city (ejn povlei hjgaphmevnh) in
which he rested and had his authority (hJ ejxousiva mou).
At the end of his history of the 6673 war with Rome, Josephus laments that
he has lived to see razed to the ground that sacred city (hJ iJera; ejkeivnh povli~) and
holy sanctuary (oJ nao;~ oJ a{gios), the great city (hJ megavlh povli~) and the mother-
city (mhtrovpoli~) of the whole Jewish race who had God as its founder (oijk-
isthv~).75 The coins of both the first and second revolts focus on the deliverance of
Jerusalem and the temple. The coins often depict the faade of the temple or a
vessel of the temple. The revolutionaries believed that the city and its temple were
inviolate since they were under the protection of God.76 Qumran, despite its rejec-
tion of the Jerusalem temple, nevertheless, idealised the holy city (CD 20.223;
11QPsa 22).77
73 D. R. Schwartz argues that Hellenistic Jews saw the temple as an institution of the city rather
than the city as an extension of the temple (Temple or City: What Did Hellenistic Jews See in
Jerusalem?, The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives [ed. M. Poorthuis and C.
Safrai; Kampen: Pharos, 1996] 11428). Even so, it seems to me that the temple still had strong
emotional meaning for Diaspora Jews.
74 For references to Jerusalems centrality to Judaism, see K. H. Tan, The Zion Traditions and
the Aims of Jesus (SNTSMS 91; Cambridge: CUP, 1997) 3051; R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham, eds,
Zion, City of our God (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1999).
75 Bell. 7.37580. Philo sees Jerusalem as the mother city not only of Judea, but also of many
other countries where Jews had scattered (Legat. 2814).
76 For example, hvdq(h) lvwry (Jerusalem the holy); lvwry twrjl (for the freedom of
Jerusalem). For a listing of these coin inscriptions and translations, see Yaakov Meshorer,
Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (trans. I. H. Levine; Tel-Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1967)
15469, and L. Mildenberg, Rebel Coinage in the Roman Empire, Greece and Rome in Eretz
Israel: Collected Essays (ed. A. Kasher et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990) 6274.
77 L. H. Schiffman, Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Centrality of Jerusalem (ed.
Poorthuis and Safrai), 7389.
258 .

Having no permanent city here on earth (ouj ga;r e[comen w|de mevnousan, 13.14)
is no doubt part of the reproach the readers are asked to bear.78 Like the worthies
mentioned in Heb 11.38, who wandered in desolate regions, and who dwelt in
mountains, dens and caves of the earth, those who go outside the camp will have
no earthly patriv~ or metrovpoli~ to provide them security and refuge.79 They are
sustained by a faith that sees the future city (mevllousa [povli~], 13.14; cf. 11.10, 16;
12.22) of God. The declaration that the Jesus-community has no permanent city
here on earth puts a cleavage between Christianity and Judaism.80 To abandon
Jerusalem as the centre of the Diasporic world is to abandon Judaism.81 To disre-
gard the tabernacle (temple) leads logically to an abandonment of Jerusalem as
having any religious significance.

X. Hebrews: a polemical sermon

However, this gives 13.914 a polemical thrust, and the problem with this,
according to Thompson, is that it clashes with the unpolemical character of the
rest of the epistle.82 But is the rest of Hebrews unpolemical? The writers contrasts
between the Levitical order and the new way of Christ are certainly disparaging of
the former and laudatory of the latter. His language is very carefully nuanced to
achieve this goal.
When referring to Jesus, his sacrifice or his peoples future he uses compara-
tive terms like kreivttwn (1.4; 7.19; 8.6; 9.23; 10.34; 11.40; 12.24), diaforwvteron (1.4;
8.6), pleivwn (3.3), uJyhlovtero~ (7.26), meivzwn (9.11), teleiotevro~ (9.11) and povsw/
ma`llon (9.14). The point of these comparatives is that Jesus death has inaugu-
rated a better or superior approach to God than that which was available through
the old Levitical/Aaronic order.83
When speaking of the Levitical era, the author uses terms of transience such as
ajpoqnhvs konte~ a[nqrwpoi (7.8), metatiqemevnh, metavqesi~ (7.12), novmo~ ejntolh`~
sarkivnh~ (7.16), dia; to; qanavtw/ kwluvesqai paramevnein (7.23), uJpovdeigma kai;
skiav (8.5), palaiovw, palaiouvmenon kai; ghravskon, ajfanismov~ (8.13), ta;
uJpodeivgmata (9.23), skia;n ga;r e[cwn oJ novmo~ (10.1); terms of insufficiency such as
78 Philo advises not to seek the city of Being (th;n tou` o[nto~ povlin) among the regions of the
earth but in the soul (yuch`). His Platonism is quite different from Hebrews historical and
eschatological perspective.
79 B. C. Ollenburger, Zion, The City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult
(JSOTSS 41; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 6680.
80 Eloquently argued by Walker, Jerusalem and Hebrews 13:914, 526.
81 For the powerful significance of Jerusalem and the temple for the Diaspora, see The Jewish
People in the First Century (S. Safrai et al.; 2 vols; Assen: van Gorcum, 1974) 1.184215.
82 Thompson, Outside the Camp, 54; Jedenfalls ist V 10b keine gezielte antijdische
Polemik (Grsser, Hebrer, 377). Attridge thinks that until v. 12 there is an element of
polemic . . . but it is indirect (Hebrews, 397).
83 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, passim.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 259

mh; dunavmenai . . . teleiw`sai (9.9), oujdevpote duvnatai tou;~ prosercomevnou~

teleiw`sai (10.1)48, ajduvnaton . . . ajfairei`n aJmartiva~ (10.4), oujdevpote duvnantai
perielei`n aJmartiva~ (10.11); and terms of excoriation such as ajsqene;~ kai; ajn-
wfelev~ (7.18), ajsqevneia (7.28).
Along with these rather derogatory descriptions of the Levitical law goes the
contrast between the repetitiveness of the old order and the finality of the new.
The Levitical service functioned kaq hJmevran (7.27; 10.11), pollavki~ (9.25; 10.11),
kat ejniauton (10.1, 3), eij~ to; dihnekev~ (10.1). In contrast, Jesus offering was an
effective means of cleansing, therefore his sacrifice is once-for-all: (ejf)apax (7.27;
9.26, 27, 28), mia; qusiva (prosfora;) eij~ to; dihnekev~ (10.12, 14). The earthly priests
went continuously into the earthly tabernacle to perform their cultic duties: dia;
pavnto~ (9.6), a{pax tou` ejniautou` (9.7), kat ejniautovn (9.25). The verb for their
entering the earthly tabernacle is always in the present tense. Contrariwise,
Hebrews always uses the aorist when referring to Jesus entrance into the heav-
enly sanctuary (eijsh`lqen 6.20; 9.12 [note the addition of ejfavpax], 24).
Indeed, whenever the writer speaks of offering sacrifice, he uses the present
tense for the Levitical/Aaronic priests (5.1, 3; 7.27; 8.4; 9.7, 9; 10.1, 2, 8, 11), but the
aorist for Jesus offering of himself, often in juxtaposition with one another (7.27;
8.3; 9.14; 9.28; 10.12).85 We may add to these the temporal aorist participles that the
writer attaches to many of his assertions about Jesus achievement. These aorist
participles infer an action finished before the action of the main verb: poihsav-
meno~ (1.3), genovmeno~ (1.4), teleiwqeiv~ (5.9), prosagoreuqeiv~ (5.10), genovmeno~
(6.20), kecwrismevno~ (7.26), ajnenevgka~ (7.27), paragenovmeno~ (9.11), euJravmeno~
(9.12), prosenecqeiv~ (9.28), prosenevgka~ (10.12). Thus we can appreciate why the
earthly priest is described as standing (e{sthken, 10.11) while performing his sacri-
ficial duties, whereas Jesus sat down (ejkavqisen, 1.3; 8.1; 10.12; 12.2) having com-
pleted his offering for sin.
It is hard to deny the presence of some disdain for the Levitical order in the
writers many contrasts between the two covenantal eras. The whole tone of the
contrasts that Hebrews makes is very polemical. Hebrews is not an academic
meditation with some practical afterthoughts attached. The whole writing has a
powerful and urgent pastoral edge to it. The admonition to go outside the camp,
bearing the reproach of Christ, climaxes a theme the writer has written into the
body of his work. Thompsons belief that 13.914 cannot be polemical because the
rest of the exhortation is unpolemical must be rejected. In fact the reverse is true:
if 13.914 is not polemical, then it is out of align with the rest of the epistle.86

84 Cf. Heb 7.11, 19.

85 Heb 9.25 is an apparent exception; only apparent because the writer denies the proposition
(oujd i{na pollavki~ prosfevrh eJautovn).
86 This challenges the occasional scholarly doubt concerning the integrity of ch. 13. G. W.
Buchanan, for example, argues that the chapter is a later addition by someone writing to a
260 .

XI. Conclusion

The polemic of Hebrews may appear at first to be out of step with the cur-
rent post-Holocaust rapprochement between Jews and Christians. However, one
must not flatten the early Christian texts in order to facilitate such a worthy
process. Horbury thinks that with the Epistle of Barnabas there is a Christian
sense of accepted separation from the Jewish community.87 That process was
already well under way with the earlier Epistle to the Hebrews.88 Even so, perhaps
Hebrews, notwithstanding its polemical language, was more an appeal to the
struggling Christian group to define itself over against the stronger and more
socially integrated Judaism rather than a direct attack on the parent religion. This
has been argued with reference to the even more violent language used against
the Jews by second-century Christian writers.89 Be that as it may, our examination
of Heb 13.914 has led to the following conclusions:

1. The reference to the various strange teachings and foods points to a degree of
concourse between the Christian group and the Jewish assemblies. This has
retarded the Christian communitys growth as a separate entity. They are still
at the basic level of instruction; still being nurtured at the breast and unable to
digest solid food (5.116.2).
2. The sacrifice that sustains Christians is outside the rights and privileges of the
Levitical age. The Christians worship should then centre on praise of the lips
(13.15) and not be enmeshed in the representatives of the Levitical order, for it
is in process of decay (8.13).
3. The writer warns the group that unless they cease their dependence on the old
order and advance in their Christian understanding they are at risk of losing
their identity within those earlier elementary truths.
4. The author urges them to go out, to abandon the comparative security of an
established religion, to hazard abuse as a despised sect and thus follow
Christs example. The future and the unseen world of God are their patria and
not any earthly Jerusalem.

Therefore the objective of Heb 13.914 like the calls to enter the rest (chs. 34),
or to approach the sanctuary boldly (chs. 910), or to go forward while looking

different audience sometime between the late first and early third centuries (G. W.
Buchanan, To the Hebrews [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1972] 2678). For a refutation see Lane,
Hebrews 913, lxvilxviii.
87 Jews and Christians, Introduction, 12.
88 J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for
the Character of Christianity (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1991) 8691.
89 R. S. MacLennan, Early Christian Texts on Jews and Judaism (Brown Judaic Studies 194;
Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990) 116.
 Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.914) 261

ahead by faith (ch. 11) is to encourage suffering and disillusioned Christians to

live out their faith in Jesus without compromise, not hesitating to accept the con-
sequences.90 To achieve this the writer creatively uses imagery drawn from some
of the lesser aspects of the Day of Atonement ritual, and conjoins these with the
suffering of Jesus as a model of enduring faith.91

90 This theme has been nicely brought out by W. L. Lane (Living a Life of Faith in the Face of
Death: The Witness of Hebrews, Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the
New Testament [ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998] 24769).
91 I unfortunately have not had pre-publication access to R. W. Johnson, Going Outside the
Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(JSNTSup 209; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002)